Guddu Yadav @ Guddu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40117 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-63 Year-2025 Thana- BUNIYAD GANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.

Guddu Yadav @ Guddu Kumar S/o Shiv Nandan Yadav Resident of VillagePanda Bigha, P.S- Buniyadganj, District-Gaya 2.

Pramod Yadav @ Rahul Kumar S/o Chandradeo Yadav @ Chanderdeo Yadav Resident of Village-Panda Bigha, P.S- Buniyadganj, District-Gaya 3.

Ramashray Yadav S/o Kuldeep Yadav Resident of Village-Panda Bigha, P.SBuniyadganj, District-Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 46266 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-63 Year-2025 Thana- BUNIYAD GANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.

Dinesh Yadav S/o Late Bisambhar Yadav Resident of Village-Panda Bigha, P.S.- Buniyadganj, District-Gaya 2.

Shiv Nandan Yadav S/o Late Bisambhar Yadav Resident of Village-Panda Bigha, P.S.- Buniyadganj, District-Gaya 3.

Dharmendra Yadav S/o Dinesh Yadav Resident of Village-Panda Bigha, P.S.- Buniyadganj, District-Gaya 4.

Arvind Yadav S/o Dev Nandan Yadav Resident of Village-Panda Bigha, P.S.- Buniyadganj, District-Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 40117 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Priya Ranjan, Advocate Ms. Chandini Kumari, Advocate Mr. Sudeep Kumar, Advocate (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 46266 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate

2/4 For the State :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Priya Ranjan, Advocate Ms. Chandini Kumari, Advocate Mr. Sudeep Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 09-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State. Perused the case diary.

2.

The petitioners seek bail in connection with Buniyadganj P.S. Case No. 63 of 2025 instituted for the offence under Sections 103(1) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3.

Prosecution case in a nutshell is that petitioners along with other co-accused murdered the husband of the informant by strangulation.

4.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are in custody since 18-02-2025. Petitioners No.1 & 2 of Cr. Misc. No. 40117 of 2025 bear no criminal antecedent, whereas petitioner No.3 of Cr. Misc. No. 40117 of 2025 bears one criminal antecedent. Petitioners No. 1 to 3 of Cr. Misc. No. 46266 of 2025 bear no criminal antecedent, whereas petitioner No.4 of Cr. Misc. No. 46266 of 2025 bears one criminal antecedent.

5.

It has been further submitted by the petitioners' counsel that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the

3/4 present case. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners, rather allegation is general and omnibus in nature. There is no eye witness to the occurrence. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners. Charge sheet has already been submitted in this case.

6.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners. It is fervently submitted that all the petitioners have committed the murder of the husband of the informant, which is corroborated by the postmortem report, wherein cause of death is asphyxia and shock. Six injures were also found on the body of the deceased which further corroborates the allegation, hence, petitioners do not deserve the privilege of bail. 7.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, this Court at this stage is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners is hereby rejected. 8.

The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and unnecessary adjournments.

9.

However, petitioners are at liberty to renew their

4/4 prayer for bail is the trial is not concluded within a period of six months from today.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Raj Kishore/- U T